[JaimeD2]

I can see that, given the context. The Fourteenth Amendment was a great consolidation of federal control; the "equal protection" clause, meant to apply to freed slaves, does seem to make all things federal, including the prohibition of establishment of religion, apply to the states as well. While I doubt that was intended, it could certainly be read that way. I always get a bit wary when closely scruitinizing the language of the Constitution and separating that from perceived intent, though, because a particularly careful reading of the second amendment, which is a grammatical nightmare on par with this sentence, seems to not protect the rights of individual gun owners. And I'm not so sure that was intended.

[Double Tap]

I have to disagree with you on the Second Amendment. It is very clear on the meaning. The "militia clause" is not a modifier or limiter on the right. The subject of the sentence, "the right to keep and bear arms", is clearly meant for the people. The "people" clearly is the individual.

You might want to find a copy of J. Neil Schulman's "Stopping Power". It has a very good section on the sentence structure of the Second Amendment.

[JaimeD2]

Let me retract that second part of the post about the text of the second amendment; I don't want to get killed. I've looked up some more sources on it, and I'm finding "expert" opinions which contradict each other, all from leigitimate experts. A good resource for people who want to see how the second amendment may, grammatically, protect the rights of individual gun owners is:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444